December 28, 2010

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Reagan, though they are two recent examples, are nevertheless just two examples, and they were both once-in-a-generation political talents.

Reagan was in the "greatest generation" and Bill Clinton is a Baby Boomer. This makes me want to dredge up the old question whether Obama is a Baby Boomer. Taking Silver's assertion seriously, if Bill is the "once-in-a-generation" talent, then Obama's not at the Clinton level. But I'll just link back to that time I assumed Obama was not a Baby Boomer and you readers argued with me about it. Well, maybe you've changed your mind. I haven't.

[Would Obama] win re-election if an election were held tomorrow[?] His approval ratings right now are quite similar to where George W. Bush’s were at the end of 2004. Mr. Bush won re-election, albeit very narrowly and against a relatively weak Democratic nominee.

Then again, the set of prospective Republican nominees is also perhaps rather weak.... [I]f an election were held tomorrow, Mr. Obama would be a clear favorite against Ms. Palin, and probably about even money (although perhaps a very slight favorite) against a less divisive Republican nominee....

[But] an election won’t be held tomorrow. Do we have any inkling yet about whether Mr. Obama’s standing with the public is likely to improve or decline by 2012?

There's the economy, which might improve. And there's the post-election flurry of activity by the doomed Democratic majority in Congress, and then, whatever will happen with the Republicans in the next session.

Mr. Obama will be fighting from a defensive posture on health care, which remains unpopular with the public....

Ultimately, however, Mr. Obama is more popular than the Republican Congress — an advantage that Bill Clinton did not have after 1994, nor Ronald Reagan after 1982. With the equally unpopular Democratic Congress largely being marginalized, that may work to his advantage....

Until we get a better sense for how the dynamics between Mr. Obama and the Republicans will play out — or in which direction the economy is headed — I would be skeptical of analyses that seem to express a significant amount of confidence on either side of that figure.

It seems to me that people generally tend to hate Congress, so it will help the President to have an oppositional Congress.

Mr. Bush won re-election, albeit very narrowly and against a relatively weak Democratic nominee.

By ginning up the social conservatives against gay marriage. Certainly it wouldn't take such a backhanded measure to gin up anti-Obama fervor in light of Tea Party victories, but let's call a spade a spade.

Mr. Obama will be fighting from a defensive posture on health care, which remains unpopular with the public....

...and looks to be increasingly unpopular.

I do agree with your last paragraph. We have no idea what tenor this relationship is going to take, but there's no evidence so far that it's going to be anything but adversarial. The President, whom I already believe is jaded about the job, will have an even tougher second two years than his first...and those weren't exactly a rrroll in ze hay.

An excellent analysis, Professor, and better in many respects than Silver's.

There is one area in particular where I think you and Silver are dead on the mark, and that is that the current crop of likely Republican nominees is thin. But they'll have two years to add gravitas or other otherwise convince the Republican primary voters that they are presidential material, and there may very well be someone out there that no one is looking at and who will knock everybody's socks off.

And there are two areas where I think that you and Silver are both overly sanguine about Obama's chances going forward. The first concerns the economy. I think the economy will recover somewhat in the next two years (if it doesn't then Obama and darn near every other politician in Washington, DC, will be toast), but not very strongly. George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and William J. Clinton were all beneficiaries of strong economies. Because neither Obama nor his advisers understand small business in general and entrepreneurs in particular, I don't see that happening.

The other area where I disagree with you and Silver both, is that the two of you assume that the Republican Congress will revert to focusing on futile gestures to appease social conservatives. I think that they've awakened to fiscal conservatism, and will take steps in that direction.

Much depends on the economy, especially unemployment, and any explosions due to the foreign policy reset. Remember, everything pretty much blew up for Carter in his last year and McCain was leading until the market swoon. Running against Congress isn't a whole lot of help, ask Bush 41.

There is also the issue of all those State houses being turned this past November. That definitely works against him.

As to likely opposition, don't anyone pin their hopes on any of them being the nominee. Also, The Zero (his sparkling real self keeps poking through) is getting less and less likable every week and Rasmussen's approval index only shows thing looking a little better over weekends and when he's on vaca. The more he's in the spotlight, the less he's liked; interesting, considering Ms Jarrett's plans for him next year.

As to his Boomerhood, anyone born between 46 and 64 is a Boomer, demographically. He and Michelle (born '64) are far more Xers. Sarah Palin (also born 64) is definitely a Boomer. It's not just an age thing; it's where and how you were raised

Comparing GWB (2004) and Obama (2012) is not valid. To start with most of the media and entertainment industry hated Bush and loves Obama. As David says the likely republican opponent will probably give Obama a huge advantage.

Nate Silver says Clinton is a once in a generation talent so, if Obama is also a baby boomer, he can't win reelection because Clinton already used up that generation's "once"?!?

That's just stupid.

Obama may win reelection because the powers of incumbancy are vast and he has blueprints to follow. Whether he does or not, Obama does not belong in the same category as Clinton. Obama is not a talented political figure.

Obama has two talents: 1. the ability to cause people to delude themselves about him for short periods of time; and 2. to convince influential people who themselves have no political future that they can further their interests buy making him the "squeaky clean guy."

As president, Obama's done a number of things I support, I am not monolithic in my condemnation of him. But from a "political talent" standpoint, he's a front man and very little more.

MadMan, it will be 52 degrees and overcast, with 10mph winds from the southwest, here in northwest Ohio.

And Thune will win POTUS.

The house may be under Republican control, but the Democrats still have 2 of the 3 levers of power (senate and presidency), so they'll get the blame for every shitty thing that happens between now and 2012. I don't think the 2010 victories were enough to completely discharge all the pressure built up as a result of popular revulsion at Obama's policies.

Here's a more interesting question, to me: How will Althouse justify her vote for Obama this time?

Last time, McCain wasn't a real conservative. She'd rather vote for the authentic liberal than a liberal who pretends to be conservative.

This time: The Republicans will pick Thune, and she'll bemoan the fact that they didn't nominate the 5'4" unelectable dwarf Mitch Daniels. (Not that there's anything wrong with dwarves; and he's a pretty sharp guy with some good ideas. But I don't think we need him coming up to Obama's belly button in a debate.)

She'll title her post "How the Republicans lost me."

Or she'll return to the framework she's been laying down lately: Obama the pragmatist. Apparently "failed revolutionary" and "stymied destroyer of all that's good and holy" are synonymous with "middle-of-the-road" and "practicality".

"Mr. Obama will be fighting from a defensive posture on health care, which remains unpopular with the public...."

This includes a decisive majority of doctors as well (I know many, not one is particularly thrilled about this new command-and-control scheme). Many of the doctors I know say that if people thought HMO's or private insurers weren't perfect, then just wait until the arbitrary/remote hand of government starts making decisions.

This is Obama's doing carried out by congress. He won't be able to divorce himself from this huge mistake.

Titus said: "When Clinton was younger I would of been appreciative if he splooged on my dress.

and: "I am born in 70. What does that make me?

It makes you too old to spend so many comments on splooge and poop and hogs. Seriously, dude, you're 40. You're not a gay version of Beavis or Butthead. You're closer to their dad's age. It's not amusing. It's just sort of sad.

As to his Boomerhood, anyone born between 46 and 64 is a Boomer, demographically

Says who, demographically?

The demographers.

Pastafarian said...

MadMan, it will be 52 degrees and overcast, with 10mph winds from the southwest, here in northwest Ohio.

And Thune will win POTUS.

The house may be under Republican control, but the Democrats still have 2 of the 3 levers of power (senate and presidency), so they'll get the blame for every shitty thing that happens between now and 2012. I don't think the 2010 victories were enough to completely discharge all the pressure built up as a result of popular revulsion at Obama's policies.

Don't know about Thune, but that 2 of 3 levers is something a lot of people were saying when the Demos kept control of the Senate.

The Baby Boom in the United States took place from 1946-1964. Obama was born in 1961. Unless you're a Birther and don't believe that Obama was born in this country, then Obama IS a Baby Boomer. It should be noted that those of us born at the tail end of the Baby Boom had a very different experience than those born 10-15 years earlier, coming of age during Watergate and the Carter recession.

Taking Silver's assertion seriously, if Bill is the "once-in-a-generation" talent, then Obama's not at the Clinton level. But I'll just link back to that time I assumed Obama was not a Baby Boomer and you readers argued with me about it.

I'll argue the other way, that the former William Jefferson Blythe, III, was not a baby boomer, leaving the title of "Once in a Generation" free for Obama to claim.

The Baby Boom is thought to be the result of GIs returning home from war, taking good jobs and founding their own families, replacing the baby bust caused by not wanting to bring extra mouths to feed into the world of the Depression, and not wanting to leave orphans behind during World War II.

But most babies born in 1946 would have had to have been conceived in 1945, a time in which GIs were actively at war, or part of an occupation force patrolling and controlling the territories of the losers and their former conquered territories. Demobilization began slowly. Thus the "returning GI" paradigm doesn't fit kids born in 1946 like Clinton.

Further, an attempt to find the circumstances of Clinton's conception and birth suggest that his mother's husband was stationed in Italy at the time he -- a full-term baby judging by birthweight, apparently -- would had to have been conceived. So the returning GI parentage paradigm would collapse entirely in Bill's case.

An attractive theory would be that Clinton's actual father eventually married the mother of his child. What was Clinton's future stepfather, a man born in 1908, doing in 1945?

Thus the "returning GI" paradigm doesn't fit kids born in 1946 like Clinton.

I've long held that the true Boomers where the children of returning GI's, but over the years, the apparent weight of opinion desires to place it on a time span rather than a circumstance.

In my own opinion, the term "Boomer" refers to more than just a birth date. It has more to do with the mindset that was the result of 1) growing up in previously unheard of prosperity and 2) growing up under the, anecdotally, smothering zealotry of the Greatest Generation.

The analysis ignores the fact that Obama is black, and America will never--never!--elect a black man as president. I mean re-elect. America will never re-elect a black man as president. Because America is a racist nation with blood on its hand and not enough snowplows.

The returning GI theory, though, would only explain the first one, born of the woopie made upon the guy's arrival back in the States.

That assumes that only the first kid counts. But few stopped with one. My neighborhood was littered (Ha!) with families of seven, eight, and nine -- all of these I knew were of Irish ancestry for some reason. Literature for local candidates prominently featured their WWII service, along with a picture of their wife and several kids.

The family on our block with only two sons stood out. The most common number of kids on our block was three.

Percentages and polls of the national electorate do not matter in 2012. What does matter is that can Obama again win the states that voted for him in 2008 and Bush in 2004....states like NC, IN, OH. Dems got absolutely clobbered in those states at all levels in 2010.

All a GOP candidate has to do is win the same states Bush won in 2004. Not that difficult considering the pull of the Obama popularity contest/historical moment won't be near what it was in 2008.

W mentions a few times in his book, "Decision Points", that generational politics probably had as much to do about his dad's loss to Clinton; Clinton's win over Dole, and McCain's loss to Obama than anything else. I wonder if anyone else is considering that wisdom besides the Professor.

Taking Silver's assertion seriously, if Bill is the "once-in-a-generation" talent, then Obama's not at the Clinton level. But I'll just link back to that time I assumed Obama was not a Baby Boomer and you readers argued with me about it.

I'll argue the other way, that the former William Jefferson Blythe, III, was not a baby boomer, leaving the title of "Once in a Generation" free for Obama to claim.

The Baby Boom is thought to be the result of GIs returning home from war, taking good jobs and founding their own families, replacing the baby bust caused by not wanting to bring extra mouths to feed into the world of the Depression, and not wanting to leave orphans behind during World War II.

But most babies born in 1946 would have had to have been conceived in 1945, a time in which GIs were actively at war, or part of an occupation force patrolling and controlling the territories of the losers and their former conquered territories. Demobilization began slowly. Thus the "returning GI" paradigm doesn't fit kids born in 1946 like Clinton.

Wrong on that. You're forgetting the system of combat points that enabled a good many men who had served in the early campaigns to be discharged before V-J Day (one resulting problem was that ETO divisions bound for the Pacific would have had a sizable number of green kids instead of the seasoned vets MacArthur was counting on).

Obama is obviously not a Baby Boomer. I'm a Baby Boomer. I lived Baby Boomer all my life, amongst the Baby Boomers, and Obama is not a Baby Boomer. His formative period isn't the 1960s. He was a little kid in the 60s. He didn't face the Vietnam War draft. Etc. etc. He's Gen X.

You're forgetting the system of combat points that enabled a good many men who had served in the early campaigns to be discharged before V-J Day

Such people were unlikely to be released unless they already had minor children (12 points for each of the first three children, only 5 points for the Medal of Honor, one point for each month of service, one additional point for each month of service overseas.) Enlisted men needed to have earned 85 points by May, 1945.

I agree with those who point to the significance of the economy in 2012. That is an unknown. I also agree with those who point out the GOP field is weak. And I agree that the pubbies are not likely to be held accountable for much unless they bungle their message (which they easily could).

I would suggest watching for a raging far left movement in the next two years. Folks who are genuinely furious with the way things are going (as the Tea Party was the last two years. The pubbies will be able to stop any legislation they want to and that will probably cause the far left to rage. The House may even be able to do some damage to Obamacare.

For me, the x factor right now is whether Obama has learned anything from the 2010 election. If he has - he will work with the pubbies and he will look good. If he hasn't - he will act as he did the last two years and appeal to about 45% of the electorate.

I would suggest watching for a raging far left movement in the next two years.

...and I would suggest watching the impending cabinet shakeups to see who stays.

Incidentally, this notion that the Obama re-election camp has of somehow running things from Chicago and positioning him as some sort of in-place outsider is, as Palladian has been today, patently ridiculous. It is interesting to consider that President Obama hasn't had to contend with a serious, pointed debate like the one a strong presidential opponent will give him.

@FLS, I was born in July 1946. My father had served in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France, and he had been rotated home to attend training as a company-grade officer in the Corp of Engineers (of course he had been commanding a company in action since the North Africa landings in November 1942) following which he was slated to be promoted to major (a field grade position) and assigned to a division scheduled to participate in the home islands landings in Japan.

My recollection is that my class in grade school was still taught by a single teacher; the classes after mine were all doubled up. (That is, there were two classrooms and two teachers needed for the classes that entered grade school in 1953, 1954, etc.)

FWIW, years later my father admitted that he had very nearly been thrown out of his training class -- he was fond of telling the instructor things like "we tried that at Salerno and it doesn't work -- what you have to do is ..."

Also FWIW, people born in 1964 were born the year I was graduating high school, and at least a few of them would have been born to Baby Boomers themselves. That makes 1946 to 1964 just too broad a time frame for a single generation. I don't know when to mark the end of the Baby Boom, but it has to have come before 1960.

I was born in 1952. Are you certain about that draft thing- I can't remember a single friend of mine born in my year who was ever drafted. I remember getting my draft lottery number in 1971 [mine was 296] but I think the lottery numbers became meaningless when the draft was ended.

Even given the larger family leanings, 10 years should be enough time to make "coming home" woopie and then crank out a couple more. I'd say '45-'55 is ample and still gets the oldest one's in going through their formative years at the height of the Vietnam War.

Scott M, It was a fake story to drive traffic to a site. "this story was dynamically generated using a generic 'template' and is not factual. Any reference to specific individuals has been 100% fabricated by web site visitors who have created fake stories by entering a name into a blank 'non-specific' template for the purpose of entertainment"

Obama is obviously not a Baby Boomer. I'm a Baby Boomer. I lived Baby Boomer all my life, amongst the Baby Boomers, and Obama is not a Baby Boomer. His formative period isn't the 1960s. He was a little kid in the 60s. He didn't face the Vietnam War draft. Etc. etc. He's Gen X.

Culturally, that's right, but demographically, he is. They break it up into cohorts and you're only including the one that ended about the time of the Korean War, which, of course, is the largest and most influential.

former law student said...

You're forgetting the system of combat points that enabled a good many men who had served in the early campaigns to be discharged before V-J Day

Such people were unlikely to be released unless they already had minor children (12 points for each of the first three children, only 5 points for the Medal of Honor, one point for each month of service, one additional point for each month of service overseas.) Enlisted men needed to have earned 85 points by May, 1945.

Likely or not, it still happened. There were also men discharged due to wounds who were very functional (e.g., James Jones, of "From Here To Eternity" fame).

I have to think that the Sandler story is a hoax because his wikip page has not been updated. Further, according to the Swiss news services, the only recent Zermatt news is the perplexing story of a train derailed because of ice buildup on a toilet drain pipe. The pipe somehow broke off and jammed between the wheels and the rails.

==================Could be. Republicans are looking to be stuck in some fratricidal mess in 2011 and 2012 as "Purity Tests" and accusations of RINO-hood and being unelectable in any state outside the Deep South and Alaska fly.And stuck demanding fealty to 30-year old ideas that were once successful but the world moved on. (Democrats were killed in the late 60s and most of the 70s running as New Dealers, then in the late 90s and 2000 timeframe running on ideas of the early 1970s Dem Platform.)As nice as the Good Old Days of Reagan were, they are over. Fealty to Saint Reagan's Voodoo Economics, Tax cutting Religion, being the World's 9/11 Service, Free Trade with China (because St Reagan said Americans can out produce and out-compete anyone and our future was making high tech things like computers while China would give us cheap toys in a win-win..)??? Those days are over.

Men were moved between fronts as well, criss-crossing the country by train. In those days, even during a war, young women didn't put out, so many of my peers were conceived on brief honeymoons and weekend passes.

My dad, a logistics officer, began the war in the Pacific and was transferred to Britain in the autumn of '43 in the Operation Overlord build up.

He transited through Oakland and had a five day pass. I was born a week after D-Day...so I'm technically not a Boomer.

Contraception being less reliable than today, war babies were common. There were 849 students in my high school graduating class, four times pre-war numbers. War babies were the first swell of the Boomer tsunami and we're already feeling the effects of the Medicare cuts.

The leading edge of the official Boomer demographic will be added to the Medicare rolls in 2011. Many war babies are already either opting out of Part B and buying private insurance or paying in cash to keep our primary care doctors. None of my doctors will accept Medicare any longer.

As cost shifting Medicare cuts continue to erode services, more Boomers & Gen-Xers will have to pick up the tab for their older family members. Gen-Xers are the next sandwich generation. Both generations represents a huge voting block that will cross all races and ethnicities.

Ironically Obama's political career may be the first causality of the so-called health care death panels.

It is absolutely true that no one born after 1952 was drafted. I was born in '53, and I would have been drafted had conscription continued. In the fall of 1972 I was required to report to Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn for a physical and IQ testing. While there I saw what turned out to be the last group of draftees from the NYC area inducted.

I was born in 64 and have always thought that boomers were born in the 50s [and late 40s] My aunts and uncles were boomers, [the young ones] I used to think of them as hippies. My parents were squares who graduated from high school in the 50s and were never counter-cultural. My influences growing up are mainly from the 70s, Im an X-er! think Obama is the first president of my generation.

Has anyone considered he may pull an LBJ and not run?The economy continues to "unexpectedly" tank...Banks continue to fail.Housing will get worse before it improves.Inflation will likely rear its head at some point.I think he'll not only face opposition in the primary, I think he could be beaten.

Clinton won again because he heeded the midterm results and changed his spots. He started governing from the centre and not doing anything too radical. In Reagan's case, his economic policies simply started to bear fruit. Weak opposing nominees helped as well.

A better example would be Carter. Carter was hugely unpopular, but the Republican candidates, then as now, were not appetizing to the electorate by comparison. Polls had Carter trouncing Reagan right up until March 1980. Then once he had clinched the nomination (and John Anderson decided to run as an independent), the gap narrowed considerably. Reagan only pulled ahead after the convention in July.

On that basis, I think the Republicans are odds-on to win, even someone as polarizing as Palin.

I certainly hope Obama doesn't get re-elected. Yuck! I won't vote for him and I'll actively campaign against him.

Technically I guess he is a boomer, but I don't consider those of us born at the end to really be boomers -- the boomers were almost adults when I was born - they changed the world before I had a chance to get involved. My tastes have always run more toward GenX. There seems to be a big difference between those born in 59 and those born in 60.

Well of course the 80s were influential to me as well, thats when I graduated from high school.....formed my lasting musical taste, and got into fashion.My point is, I was growing up in the 70s.....I cant be a boomer. I have looked at lots of generational info and there is not a clear cut consensus. You find 13-ers, Generation Jones, Gen X.....